The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

There are some 62,000 regisâ€" tered charities in Canada. Some people say that‘s too many, but Surveys show that most Canaâ€" dians want established levels maintained. There is also a rich tradition of involvement by both religious and secular charities in the provision of social services in Canada. In these times of governâ€" ment cutbacks, there‘s increased pressure on the charitable sector to fill the gap. 8 So those of us trying to raise money are faced with some quesâ€" tions. First, and rather fundaâ€" mentally, what kind of society do we want in terms of social serâ€" That‘s why there‘s so much emphasis on finding ways to ask individuals for donations. Chariâ€" ties know that, aside from governâ€" ment grants, the bulk of the support for the work of Canada‘s social service sector and for interâ€" national development comes from the Canadian public. One of the many misconcepâ€" tions is that corporations and foundations provide the lion‘s share of the charitable support. In fact, it‘s individual members of the public who do most of the charitableâ€"giving in â€" Canada. Year after year, individual donaâ€" tions make up 80 to 90 per cent of the total. The fact is that the generosity of Canadians makes direct mail the most consistent and successâ€" ful fundraising method for most charities. We hear a lot about what it‘s like for the folks who get the mail. Now that I‘ve escaped from the circle around the punch bowl, I‘d like to present a point of view for those of us trying to raise the money. In the past year or so, there‘s been a lot of negative media coverage about the increasing numbers of fundraising appeals through the mail. Various artiâ€" cles and lettersâ€"toâ€"theâ€"editor have represented soâ€"called junk mail as a waste of postage and paper. People say there are too many charities and they feel overloaded by the requests, especially in these difficult, economic times. In fact, they Qé;;nv-;'t};.i;.l(wt.he whole approach of asking for money by mail is out of control. I‘ve never suffered any actual physical violence. Let‘s just say that people have strongly held views on the topic. Chronicle Special There‘s one thing I can always count on while standing around a party punchbow! â€" as soon as possible find out that I‘m a fundâ€" raiser for a charitable organizaâ€" tion, everyone has something to say. f Then someone will bring up the subject of junk mail â€"â€" and forefinâ€" fel'l start jabbing me in the chest. ‘ve never suffered anv actual COMMENT Jur!k mail gets a bum rap K EN SHIPLEY * Schugardt‘s Shoe Repair We also make orthotic footbeds and arch supports. Call 885â€"4030 or visit at Glenridge Plaza, corner of University \y Ave. E. and Lincoln Rd., Waterlo0 . ,‘\ ‘"Birkenstock â€" Finn Comfort Shoes" ) Sales & Restoration Center First, the charities using direct mail have a responsibility to be as efficient and as focused as possiâ€" ble. It‘s not to anyone‘s advanâ€" tage to send mail to people who are not interested. More sophistiâ€" cated computer mailâ€"handling software and demographic analyâ€" sis can reduce the chance of mail going to people who are not likely to send back a gift. If people wish to reduce the amount of direct mail they reâ€" ceive, there are several steps that So what can be done to reduce the negative impact? â€" have a variety of revenue sources. It‘s inevitable, then, that direct mail will continue to be one of the key methods. In addition, the charity has to consider how much negative pubâ€" licity results from a fundraising effort. If people don‘t like autoâ€" mated telephone solicitations, it will reflect badly on the soliciting organization. Finally, a prudent fundraising program reqturgs a charity to A number of considerations enter into the choice of a fundraisâ€" ing method. The first is efficiency. People want charities to minimâ€" ize fundraising costs, so it‘s the fundraiser‘s responsibility â€" to choose _ lowâ€"cost, _ highâ€"return methods. There are many fundraising approaches, including special events (everything from garage sales to bigâ€"ticket, starâ€"studded events like Téars Are Not Enough), TV telethons, autoâ€" mated telephone solicitations, doorâ€"toâ€"door canvassing, art and craft sales, bike, walk, swim, sit, dance, and various other types of "thons", and starveâ€"ins. There‘s also increased faceâ€"toâ€"face soliciâ€" tation of large gifts and "planned giving" (wilfle, estates, charitable annuities), let‘s assume that most charities exist because there‘s a useful role for them to play. If that‘s true, the next issue is the need to raise the necessary funds to operate. uf:gnued as a percentage of le income, charitable giving in Canada has been declining fairly consistently for about 30 years. However, mgl;):‘ te.lll”us some interesting thi ut donor attitudes. Canadians think they give more than they actually do in both money and volunteer time. Beyond that, they think they should be giving even more â€" 70 per cent more, in fact. While the decline in giving is sobering (especially around the punchbowl), the positive attitudes suggest that Canadians will give more if properly approached. So fundraisers are faced with the question: What‘s the best way to ask people? Which brings us back to direct mail, the method that is subject to so much criticism these days. Do people think we should use another method? Or that we should be satisfied with less monâ€" ey? Do people feel that there are too many charities, or is it just a general sense of fatigue from always being asked for money? can be taken. They can ask their favorite charities not to trade their name. They can also ask to receive mail only once a year. Computers handling mailing lists are programmed to handle "no People can also be more selecâ€" WATERLOO CHRONICLE, WEDNESDAY , MARCH 20, 1991 â€" PAGE A7